new wierd zoning

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

the wharf rat - 27 Apr 2008 01:27 GMT

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm finding the new
zone-in-wait-for-mobs-to-pop-and-invis-to-click-on-and-then-run-through
a-slide-show-for-10-seconds behavior incredibly annoying.

Reply to this Message

D.J. - 27 Apr 2008 02:32 GMT

] I don't know about the rest of you but I'm finding the new
]zone-in-wait-for-mobs-to-pop-and-invis-to-click-on-and-then-run-through
]a-slide-show-for-10-seconds behavior incredibly annoying.

The explained it on the offical forums. The entire zone loads,
then you are in there. Before content was loaded as you moved
around the zone you had just moved into depending on the clip
values.

Don't feel bad, it takes me from 1-2 minutes to zone.

JimP.

Signature

http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/blog/ Mar 29, 2008: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog Apr 1, 2008
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/newblog/ AD&D blog AD&D Apr 26, 2008

Reply to this Message

Tony - 28 Apr 2008 18:48 GMT

> ] I don't know about the rest of you but I'm finding the new
> ]zone-in-wait-for-mobs-to-pop-and-invis-to-click-on-and-then-run-through
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> around the zone you had just moved into depending on the clip
> values.

I thought it was,

Original behaviour: Client loads all the resources required for the
entire zone, and receives information about all NPC's for the zone,
while the 'loading' screen is up.

Changed behaviour (prior to the last patch): Client drops the loading
screen, but continues loading resources in the background, client now
only gets NPC information for NPC's within a set radius. People
experience a broad range of issues.

New behaviour: Client now leaves the loading screen up until resources
are loaded, the code for 'not knowing about NPC's outside of a certain
range' is still in, but until other issues are fixed the range has been
set to infinity.

The boards do have extensive posts from SKlug discussing the changes,
and why they are being made.

Signature

Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

Reply to this Message

Tony - 29 Apr 2008 18:35 GMT

>> ] I don't know about the rest of you but I'm finding the new
>> ]zone-in-wait-for-mobs-to-pop-and-invis-to-click-on-and-then-run-through
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> The boards do have extensive posts from SKlug discussing the changes,
> and why they are being made.

Hmm, seems I'm wrong, the current situation is a mix of the previous
two. It's loading some resources while the screen is up, and some while
it first shows you the zone. Once the proximity code is back in, the
amount it loads while you appear to be 'in zone' will be lower again,
and so in theory, faster.

Signature

Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

Reply to this Message

D.J. - 29 Apr 2008 19:17 GMT

]Hmm, seems I'm wrong, the current situation is a mix of the previous
]two. It's loading some resources while the screen is up, and some while
]it first shows you the zone. Once the proximity code is back in, the
]amount it loads while you appear to be 'in zone' will be lower again,
]and so in theory, faster.

Maybe they saw the complaints on the forums and altered it.

JimP.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Tony - 29 Apr 2008 22:12 GMT

> Maybe they saw the complaints on the forums and altered it.

SKlug read all the feedback, and backed out the changes until he can
isolate the causes, I knew that, what I didn't grasp was the exact
changes he backed out.

SKlug has expressed his frustration (albeit very calmly) that despite
this code sitting on the test server, the issues don't appear to have
been highlighted.

Signature

Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

Reply to this Message

Ulandx - 06 May 2008 04:05 GMT

>> Maybe they saw the complaints on the forums and altered it.
>
> SKlug read all the feedback, and backed out the changes until he can
> isolate the causes, I knew that, what I didn't grasp was the exact
> changes he backed out.

They took it out ?
I still have that choppy behaviour for about 10 seconds after zoning.
Even worse I have it randomly now when being in a zone for a while.
What I wonder is do they really have nothing better to do instead
of changing something which worked fine?
I run EQ on a AMD Athlon 1.33 GHZ,9 years old,with a 64 bit graphic
card and it was just running fine before those amateurish attempt
to improve something which does not need any improvement.
Another issue which makes me shake my head.

Reply to this Message

Tony - 09 May 2008 19:47 GMT

> They took it out ?

Various elements have been changed.

> What I wonder is do they really have nothing better to do instead
> of changing something which worked fine?

It's funny how some people think that about everything they do. The
goal of reducing the EQ memory footprint seems a valid one.

Signature

Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

Reply to this Message

Richard Carpenter - 09 May 2008 23:27 GMT

>> They took it out ?
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> It's funny how some people think that about everything they do. The goal
> of reducing the EQ memory footprint seems a valid one.

/agree

Signature

Richard Carpenter

Reply to this Message

Ulandx - 10 May 2008 20:28 GMT

>> They took it out ?
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> It's funny how some people think that about everything they do. The
> goal of reducing the EQ memory footprint seems a valid one.

I forgot to mention my PC has 512 MB ram and runs EQ fine,so what was
their goal with "reducing the EQ memory footprint" again when nowadays
mashine have 2 GB ram?

Reply to this Message

RangerGirl - 10 May 2008 20:57 GMT

"I forgot to mention my PC has 512 MB ram and runs EQ fine,so what was
their goal with "reducing the EQ memory footprint" again when nowadays
mashine have 2 GB ram?"

Possibly because a few folk squeeze 3 or 4 accounts out of that 2 gig, so
any reduction in memory footprint is a god send:)

Reply to this Message

Faeandar - 11 May 2008 22:10 GMT

>"I forgot to mention my PC has 512 MB ram and runs EQ fine,so what was
>their goal with "reducing the EQ memory footprint" again when nowadays
>mashine have 2 GB ram?"
>
>Possibly because a few folk squeeze 3 or 4 accounts out of that 2 gig, so
>any reduction in memory footprint is a god send:)

I doubt that's the reason but I could be wrong. More likely, imo, is
that the memory leaks hit at different times, for different reasons,
and with variables like zone, number of people in view/range, etc.

It's much more likely that the memory leak occurs during raids in uber
zones and that causes severe grief to raiding guilds. I see them
caring about that scenario more than the 512MB single player or the
2GB multi-account player.
While the multi-account player is revenue generating I would hazard a
guess that most who play multiple accounts have multiple machines.

~F

Reply to this Message

RangerGirl - 12 May 2008 22:02 GMT

/sigh . . . . love of raiding is the root of all evil . . . .

I don't have room for more than a couple of PC's and can usually drag out 7
alts due to friends leaving me their details, so memory leaks, over heavy
graphical effects, removing levitation bobbing, killing zoning because of
the insane time taken to load everything in a zone causing LD's etc etc

If it's a benefit to anyone for any reason who really cares how or why as
long as it doesn't adversely affect others?

Reply to this Message